Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: ANY Woman Who Would Now Vote Republican Lacks Independence And Self-Respect.

Posted 2 years ago on April 8, 2012, 10:54 p.m. EST by GypsyKing (9727)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

After the long list of disgustingly misogynistic legislation that has been produced by this Republican Congress, it seems impossible to me that any self-respecting woman would vote Republican in the next election.

Never mind that this legislation is just a lure for social conservatives, who are luke-warm on Romney, and that in turn are just being duped into doing the bidding of the 0.001%. The cynical willingness of Republicans in Congress to shame and degrade women in this way should say everything any woman needs to know about their contempt for American citizens, for women, and for human rights.

288 Comments

288 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

[-] 6 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Funny they seem to hate or at least need to alienate every group but one, old white guys.

And of course, some of them are refusing to wear the pointy hoods, so scratch them. And then some of them are gay, so scratch them. And some of them aren't Christians, so scratch them. And some of them are not the right kind of evangelical Christians, so scratch them. And some of them aren't really conservative enough, so scratch them Well, there are several more sub categories, but you know the ones I mean.

So, Billy Bob, I guess it's you and me, bubba, but we have raised the qualifications to keep all of the undesirables from voting, so grab yer concealed carry permit and let's go down to the school house and turn in our landslide, grab a couple of sixes of Lone Star and the new DVD documentary about Shayrriff Arpaio. I'll get the truck.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 1 year ago

I like it.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Well, it is a paraphrase, but I'm pretty sure I have heard versions of all of these statements.

[-] 5 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

There really is nothing wrong with staying home to raise kids if you are willing to sacrifice materialistic things for yourself and your family in favor of non materialistic needs or just the give the value of your time and energy to your family. The problem is how hard it is for a family to survive on one income. If the families that could, would, unemployment would go down, but not because jobs were created or brought back. The scam was making women feel like they had to enter the work force to try and buy their equality in their relationships with paychecks that were guaranteed to be lower than their spouses in most cases. A woman should have value whether she is sporting a spiffy paycheck or not!

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Great comment! I've never heard anyone say it before and frankly I've been leary of broaching the subject, but to some degree the 1% hijacked feminism to the detriment of all.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Yeah, corporations doubled their workforce, got women on the cheap, decreased the demand for labor and never raised men's wages, slowly upped women's wages and we were hearing how great it was that women were moving towards equality. Same for minorities. Now every gets equally crappy wages. We've all been had!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Someone finally said it! I'm thrilled! Damed right! We've all been had, and it was called women's liberation!

I'm not saying there weren't great things about the women's liberation movement. There were, and are. I definately consider myself pro-feminist. In many, many ways womens lives, and the lives of everyone are far better because of it. But we can't look away from truth, and the truth is there was a downside.

I will give a slight nod, this once, to those on the right. Political correctness is a double edged sword. To the extent it makes prejudice and incindiary hate speech socially unacceptable it is positive, but we can't ever let any topic become unsubject to reasonable analysis. At times I think the left errs in this regard.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Also, a lot of the ideas of both the left and the right hold very dear are favorable to the corporates. The very idea that every culture and country should live like us and have the same ideals and go threw the same struggles we have and share the same failings and shortcomings as part of their evolution towards becoming major consumers and all governments should look the same and be easily controlled to the detriment of their people is very corporate sponsored. The right should be able to identify with middle easterners who feel the souls of their youth are threatened by the American entertainment industry. The left should hear India when they say modernization is a price that is too high for all of India to adopt. I think oil companies are the only people profiting from dragging goods around and around the earth! Its both parties ideals of how great America is and how everyone should be like us and the marketing of corporations and the greed and the bad bank deals that are going to drag the whole world into a huge economic collapse. This is what we are leaving my children and future grand children to. Plus the fact everyone wants to continue on as before snapping up the trinkets that amount the slave beads of the era. If people only can come out of their trance long enough to see what is going on maybe they will make some changes.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well said. I agree with all of this. As you will see in my post below, I have been focusing on the process; that is of trying to put together a path to get us from where we are to where we want to be that incorporates current political reality. More than anything I think what we need to do is perservere, become engaged and stay engaged in this process. There is now nothing less than human survival at stake.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

I'm mostly on the left even though I'm a Christian. I wish the left and the right would come together and stop globalization and banking scams all over the world. There are things almost everyone can agree on, Like no p[arty opposing globalization and huge banks. We should set aside some issues that polarize the country and focus on the major ones we do agree on more.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

That's a really complicated subject - too complicated for me to even respond to it effectively here without writing a tome! A lot of the problem lies in the complexities of this entrenched two party system. It has us locked-up in many ways into opposing factions. If any one group splits from the party they more closely identify with, all they accomplish is to empower the opposing party.

That is not real democracy, but it is the system that currently exists, and to actually achieve change we must work within the parameters of what is.

This is when the game gets painfully complicated, because as individuals many on the left and right could get together and find common ground, yet the two party system prevents this from happening in the political arena. It is inherently polarizing.

I have fairly openly advocated that people alligned with the OWS movement vote Democratic in the next election - not because I'm not throughly disillusioned with the "New Democrats," I am, but because I believe a Republican win would destroy this movement. I think we need a Democratic sweep in order for this movement to have the breathing room to grow. This is purely strategic thinking, which doesn't affect my disgust with both parties. I don't think we've seen a real Democrat in the White House since Roosevelt.

Having said that, I think after the election we must go about creating a 99% party that directly addresses the problem of corruption. Every year that goes by the two parties look increasingly like the one party of the 1%. And in the final anlyisis, I have to say I just hate the neo-con, Tea Pary vision of the world. To me Rick Santorum might as well just be a member of the Taliban, for all he cares about democratic values. Their agenda is absolutely repugnant to me.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Yes! I can agree with this way of thinking. The strategy of OWS is focusing on urban areas and I am in a rural area. I am very favorable towards boycotts and changes in spending patterns that poor people can make as well. I really do support voting with your dollars. I'd like to see bartering and trading and buying local and all the other good things I think the movement can bring to people everywhere. The only thing a corporation sees is their bottom line. I realize politics are the huge part of the picture and much needs changing. We've worked for them, we've bought their crap, we've taken out student loans. There is stuff all over the tv about how to cut corners. I'm so poor, I now feel I have invented the wheel I've cut so many corners!!! The idea that most people are doing so well they just don't care just seems foreign to me. Yet my aunt said it too much time and trouble to hunt down a good used car so she just bought a new one. She's a nurse and her husband has an Okay job but they have two kids in college. I found the idea of taking a little time to save thousands of dollars being too much trouble utterly disgusting. I'm betting those kids have student loans up to their ears and she's driving herself around in a new car. If you sign paper, take out the loan, buy the product someone will sell it to you. I think the bottom-lines need to move for real change to ever have a chance.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, I can relate. I think things are changing, finally, I really do. Anyway, it was good chatting with you:)

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

You too! I'll try to stop by more often and check on what is happening. I think more and more people are waking up to the problems and what has happened. Feminists around the globe need to step forward and say, we are just as human as men and equality should should be granted to us based on that, not on our earning potential. All humans lives are worth more than the corporations say they are.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

That took some balls, or maybe the lack there of. That is one taboo subject I will not touch, but to say that the thought has ran through my head a few times. I often think women were suckers for wanting to frolic with the work force.

Bring on the condemnation for me having questioned a politically correct nogo. lol

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

A problem is stagnated wages. Another is thinking women can't do any goddamn thing they fucking want.

[-] -1 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

Why is it women who should stay home and not men?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I'm surprised you left out forced tranvaginal ultrasounds for women wanting an abortion. Some asshole repubs in Mississippi were trying to get that passed.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Did you know Dylans show is getting canceled.

Im freakin pissed.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I decided to cut that part from Dylan out of my comment.

I wonder why he's getting canceled... the powers that be don't like him maybe?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im not sure. He was only guy on the MSM tv I liked to listen to.

I think its because he addresses underlying problems and not the usual fluff that the masses like to focus on.

[-] 2 points by happygal (4) 1 year ago

A little crazy, a lot scary. I tried to have a conversation with my husband (a fairly liberal man) about 6 weeks ago about how women's rights are being rolled back in this country and how frightened I was. He basically scoffed. Two weeks ago I revisited the conversation, and he admitted that women's rights are headed in the wrong direction in America.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 1 year ago

Divide and conquer. You've heard that RW yahoo who said that we made a huge mistake when we gave women the right to vote??!!!

[-] -1 points by verdade (-24) 1 year ago

The elections are rigged. That means debating which corporate puppet to vote for is a waste of time. Forget about Obama and Romney. Forget about the Democratic and Republican Parties. Focus on Regime Change.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 1 year ago

This is exactly what the RW Plutocrats want you to think!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Well, we know the division tactic they are going to trumpet endlessly between now and November. "Anybody who votes is a traitor to the movement." That is going to be their message from here on out.

False Dichotomy.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 1 year ago

Marriage Equality! Yet another great big huge difference between Cons and Dems!

[-] 0 points by verdade (-24) 1 year ago

Forget about the rigged elections. Forget about Obama and Romney. Forget about all of the crooked Democrats and Republicans. Focus on Regime Change.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 1 year ago

It happens every election anyway.....you boob.

you want it to happen yet you say iut doesn't happen.

You say vote out a whole bunch of them, yet you say voting doesn't change anything.

You talk like a Mr. P fan.

Just as confused as you are confusing.

[-] -3 points by verdade (-24) 1 year ago

I did NOT and have NEVER said "vote out a whole bunch of them", you blithering idiot. What I DID say was "Focus on Regime Change".

[-] 3 points by shooz (26603) 1 year ago

You twit wad. It was a different thread. Did you get lost, again?

You had some 500 of 'em you want replaced. You left them nameless of course. Were you just going to replace them with whoever YOU want?

That ain't how it works twit wad.

I gave you a LIST of over 2,000. Real live, actionable names.

You just lost, lame little boy, shouting slogans.

[-] -3 points by verdade (-24) 1 year ago

I said "regime change", not "vote them out", and you'll never prove otherwise by typing the same lunacy over and over.

You are either mentally retarded or a pathological liar. Either way, I will waste no more time on you.

[-] 3 points by shooz (26603) 1 year ago

You're the lunatic that keeps coming back here and repeating yourself.

You make less sense with every post.

I gave you 2,000 actionable names

What did you give?

A bunch of lame slogans.!

You should just go away then, you offer nothing but negativity.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Strange, you don't spell out a campaign for HOW we get regime change, Iron Butt.

[-] -2 points by verdade (-24) 1 year ago

No stranger than the fact you won't post your real name, real address, real nation of residence, and what your real agenda is for posting 7,286 points worth of co-optation propaganda to this forum.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Lame.

[-] -3 points by verdade (-24) 1 year ago

The truth is often so accused, but that doesn't change its "veracity".

[-] -2 points by verdade (-24) 1 year ago

I suppose "the RW Plutocrats" produced these documentaries too, then:

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is Your Mind

http://www.openfilm.com/videos/psywar

Hacking Democracy

http://www.hulu.com/watch/192687/hacking-democracy

Peace!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/177439/peace

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Awesome. My only friend that's had an abortion was at planned parent hood. She was 7 months prego and had been trying for a baby for three years but this one had no heart beat for a month. Her doctor wouldnt do it. It was tramatizing. People should just leave that place alone.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Oh, BTW, I checked out your link regarding Coke and ALEC. I think Coke has already backed down, and people say these online petitions are useless?!!

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Kraft, too.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thank you Jiffy. Now that I'm back I need to go no further to back-up the thesis of this post. I've never seen anything like this legislative war on women. It reminds me of the Taliban.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I suppose if you could call some Republicans acting like assholes as a "war on women" then you could call those who are pro-choice as having a "war on children".

Its all media bullshit. The pro-lifers have always been introducing idiotic legislation, like that probing thing in Virginia. Or remember the ultrasound bill?

It gets everyone all fired up and talking about abortion again, attacking each other, and not focused on how much opportunity they are stealing from us.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

No, the Republican Party has become unacceptably right wing, to the degree that it threatens the last vestages of democracy. We must counter that push in every way we can. We are not even close to winning this war yet and the first battle is to prevent it from going further in their direcion. To think otherwise is to ignore reality.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I thought the vestiges of democracy where bought out in both parties by corporate funding

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Please give us a plan for future success that includes allowing the Republicans to win the next election step by step then, because I just don't see it. I've asked that question a number of times but never gotten a reply.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I agree, if republicans win the next election (and keep in mind, Congress is just as important as the White House) ... it would be a disaster. Granted, even democrats will have to be pushed into implementing more aspects of direct democracy (not only at the federal level, but also the state and municipal levels), but we have a good chance with democrats, whereas we have NO chance with republicans (and obviously we should want to increase our chances of inducing real change).

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, unfortunately (because I am thoroughtly disgusted with the Democrats) this is an inescapable fact. We can force change upon the Democrats, being part of the coalition necessary for them to be elected. In fact, in the case of the narrow margin in recent elections, we could be a very powerful part of their coallition, and exert real influence in the real, existing (as opposed to imaginary) power structure; while if the Republicans win they will be in a position to either ignore or crush us at their leasure.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Thing is with republicans, they are, by gleeful admission, diametrically opposed to pretty much everything we stand for. So when republicans sick the dogs on us, berate us at every opportunity, they're just doing what they said they were going to do (just like when they give the wealthy tax breaks, bestow lavish gifts on giant corporations, etc.).

Democrats are at least rhetorically tied to us. They have the luxury of hiding behind the fact that they don't control congress right now, but if they gain control of congress (and retain the White House), their choices will be to either go against their constituency (which OWS has pushed back towards the left), or support what we support (at least in many aspects).

Republicans and the financial industry are keeping their game faces on ... but in reality they have to be nervous. They know this movement isn't like the wishy washy bullshit of the past few decades. If democrats win, they won't be able to placate us with phony gimmicks.

Point is, for Gen X and younger, this is absolutely the most important election cycle that we've ever had in our lives, and democrats are now (for the most part) speaking our language.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, when McGovern lost to Nixon in '72 it changed the whole course of my life. This election will be the same for their generation.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I wasn't around for that one .... but I think this one is may be just as important :)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I'll believe it when I see the democrats take action or not

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well, they won't unless we force them, but between now and the next election, given the reality of where we now stand, I don't think there is any other course to follow that will actually produce results other than making ourselves a necessary part of their coalition, and then forcing them to address our issues.

Any other course would be divissive and ineffective in the short run. After November we will see where we need to go from there.

That is how I see it. I am open to any resonable alternatives, but we must take into consideration the actual mechanisms of power and be realistic about whether our goals can obtain real change.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we could stop dropping bombs today

that is realistic

a government can build a public healthcare system

lot's of countries do it

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

No, Matt 'we' couldn't. They (the oligarchy) could because it is they who are in power. The question is, how do we (the people) regain power so that 'we' have that choice again? The issue now is how do we get from here to there, rather than simply stating and re-stating our goals - upon which I believe there is general agreement and has been for some time.

If we could talk about that question, the question of how, which is the question I have been trying to address for months now on this forum, then we might begin to get somewhere.

That is exactly the question the trolls have been effectively de-railing time and time again.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the democrats can hear our issues from here

they can decide if they want to pay any heed

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I think that is accepting a passive roll and will achieve nothing. I don't see it as a plan, but simply as an anti-plan.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I will support politicians that support my issues

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

create a direct democracy through verifiable internet voting

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well, my question when it comes to this is: with the oligarchy owning all the economic and almost all the political institutions of the country, the police, the army and virtually all the land, they might have something yet to say about that.

The thing about power is that you must first aquire it before you can make it opperate.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Stop watching so much TV.

Both parties are attacking us, and keeping one half believing the other is better is a suer fire to destroy a future for your kids.

Time to start taking charge and making things happen.

Im personally not voting for either of these warmongering corportist parties.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world"....This doesnt mean vote for warmongers.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Cheers.

It amazes me that so many do not see the huge flaw in buying into the premise that the only viable options on the table involve debating the actions of teams comprised of devils with tails docked vs devils with ears cropped.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Exactly :)

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

The crazy right has adopted many dirty tactics, starting with Operation Paperclip when the adopted the Big Lie from the Nazis, among other things. Did you enjoy that video I sent?

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I've been in and out a lot, so I haven't seen the video yet, sorry . . . but thanks again for the links!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

JoeTheFarmer = spewer of subtle poisons - supporter of the status-quo.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

JoeTheFarmer = worm tongue pretender of support to OWS.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good deal finally some truth no more pretending. Good for you Joe. Cause back a short time ago? You were not so forth coming. So tell it like it is Joe you are a supporter of the status-quo.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Please Joe you have wandered around here for months putting on your song and dance. Own it - others do remember you and your routine.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Holy Jehoshaphat! One of them got honest! Now I really think the world is coming to an end.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I know - I bout fractured my jaw when it bounced of the ground.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha . . .!!!

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Even better the asshole is trying to deny that he ever pretended. What does he think that people have short term memory loss or something?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21771) 2 years ago

I don't understand it either, Gypsy. I find it utterly revolting.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

As does any person who wants to end the power and manipulation of the banks and the 1% that votes for who Goldman Sachs is funding.

Seriously. Think About It.

Where did a bailed out bank get millions of dollars to fund both presidential campaigns.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

It's so bizarre, the republican time machine back to the 1950's. They need to stop smoking crack while watching reruns of Ozzie & Harriet :)

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

Only the (R)epelican'ts seem to think this war on women is phony.

Does that mean it's a pre-emptive attack? You know, just in case women might attack them?

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-there-a-republican-war-on-women/reproductive-health-laws-prove-gop-war-on-women-is-no-fiction

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I think, aside from their long expressed hatred of women's rights, it might be a desperate attempt to shore-up their reactionary, "social conservative" base who are luke warm on Romney.

That's the best I can come up with.

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

We could say that for any woman who votes for either republican party.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

It's not just women.

Anyone at all who still votes (R)epelican't, had no independence, or self respect in the first place.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I'm not going to argue with you there.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

I find their excuses for bad policy even more disgusting.

It's more like a return to the 19th century, than an admission to the 21st.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460917/wisconsin-state-senator-money-less-important-wome/

I hope they clean the slate in the Wisconsin recalls.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

If you want my opinion, it's like watching a really bad episode of "Return to the Planet of the Apes," only not the least bit funny.

Every time they open their mouths you have to pinch youself to know you're not having a nightmare.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

Some of them are now calling the Girl Scouts of America a subversive group.

How much more ignorant can they get?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

It amazes me that I don't find that surprizing, but I don't

[-] -2 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Here is an interesting counter-point I'd like for you to honestly answer sans any glib or priggish BS....

How many women or men voted for Pelosi have benefited from her treasonous wealth extraction activities? How many with integrity intact have stepped up and demanded she, and all other DC inside traders, be recalled, prosecuted and even hung in town square?

Their theft is no different than that of the banksters, they stole that money from the people who seemingly 'just lost it' or their mutual fund merely had a bad week or two in the market. It's only money.

Your consistent presentment of democrats as this anti-thesis simply cannot be backed up by obvious real world happenstances, much less facts.

They are most all treasonous.

[-] -2 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Yet on the other hand, those who realize this and have such amazing clarity to see that Democrats are the antithesis, therefore the solution, could not possibly be conveniently over-looking any plain truths.

People who have concluded that the system, rife with all it's blatant corruption, is flat out FUBAR, must be nutcases lacking any patriotism worthy of your approval.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

The system has been corrupted by libe(R)tarians, primarily using the (R)epelican't party to achieve their goals..

I've pointed this out many times.

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Of course, if you type it, it shall be carved in stone, by OWS minions, as if it came directly from the worshipful Demonc(R)at burning bush itself.

If not, then if you incessantly and compulsively type the same thing 10,000,000 times there cannot be any valid questioning as to the veracity of any of your viewpoints or propaganda. Seems reasonable to me!

Your DC is corrupt and broken beyond repair..... from the right all the way to the left (the other right/wrong).

You do know this and instead of truly seeking how these things have been allowed to "legally" happen, you prefer the easy way of blaming the other side oblivious to the hard facts that they are all pulling against The People.

Your simple thinking and fraudulent rhetoric, crafted solely to distract, will one day be able to be seen through even by masses of average people. So, be prepared to change your staunch and unwavering dogma, as it will soon be quite obsolete and even more counter-productive.

I find it highly disingenuous that you have no answer to my insider trading question.

Just saying, I know nothing I type will phase you in the least.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

Of course it won't phase me. You completely ignored what I said. So why should I be phased?

You're inability to think outside the drum, has become notoriously legendary.

Welcome to the Plutocratic States of the Military Industrial Complex.

You have been assimilated. Please move to the back of the bus.

[-] -2 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Please carry on with your "Vote Democ(R)at Non-assimilated Free Thinker's" jive.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

You say that like you've ever really been awake and aware.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, is the extent of all your thinking.

Stay buried deep within your drum.

[-] -2 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

yada yada yada

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4837) 1 year ago

Oklahoma Doctor Refuses to Provide Rape Victim With Emergency Contraception

Friday, 01 June 2012 12:07 By Annie-Rose Strasser, ThinkProgress | News Analysis

An Oklahoma emergency room doctor refused to provide emergency contraception to a 24-year-old female rape victim because the medication violated the health provider’s personal beliefs, a local CBS News affiliate reports. The hospital also denied the victim a rape kit, noting that it had no appropriate nurse on staff to administer the test.

“I will not give you emergency contraceptives because it goes against my beliefs,” the doctor allegedly told the rape victim and her mother, Rhonda. “She knew my daughter had just been raped. Her attitude was so judgmental and I felt that she was just judging my daughter,” Rhonda told the news station.

Emergency contraception’s effectiveness diminishes over time, and is most effective when taken immediately. Oklahoma law, however, shields providers from offering the perfectly legal medication under a “conscience clause” which could significantly hinder women’s access to contraception services. States across the nation have adopted similar restrictions and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has pledged to expand Bush-era rules permitting doctors to place their beliefs ahead of women’s health.

Fortunately, the young woman in Oklahoma ended up going to another hospital, where she received the medication she needed and the rape kit. But she would have had to go to two hospitals either way, since budget cuts have forced the state to resort to a system of rotating Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE nurses).

Originally published on ThinkProgress

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

I did a great one on FB a while back. Here it is:

Conceived in the 1950's, built in the 1960's & 70's, the WTC was a proud monument to architecture, human innovation, and progress.

Romney will be to women what Bin Laden was to the NYC skyline. I think women who plan to vote for Romney should practice by changing their hair styles. Here's a good 1950's archetype:

I can't get the pic in here, but hopefully this provides a good laugh.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

LOL!

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

I think the title of this thread is an attack on some of the woman.Then again Im not saying there is anything wrong with that.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I wonder if Ronald Reagan ever repudiated Lawrence King the politician, banker, fraudster, and pedophile? 9 minutes into the video a lady states she handed over 1 foot high of document referrals of child abuse to the police. He held extravagant parties for Washington DC insiders. IRS and FBI Raided his Bank. Sex Ring? 44:30 minutes into the video John De Camp, Lawyer, gets tape evidence from deposition that was withheld from Grand Jury as part of Cover-Up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW9_ulzXOMQ&feature=related

Franklin Federal Credit Union was closed in 1988 and Larry was found to have stolen $40 Million Dollars. Apparently he lavished gifts on Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations

Apparently there is a charge that Larry King provided childeren to elite rich Americans Republicans for sex.

The Franklin child prostitution ring allegations were a series of high-profile accusations and legal actions between 1988 and 1991 surrounding an alleged child sex ring serving prominent citizens of Omaha, Nebraska, as well as high-level U.S. politicians.[1] The allegations centered on the actions of Lawrence E. King, director of the recently-collapsed Franklin Community Federal Credit Union in Omaha and a prominent local political figure. Two grand juries ruled the allegations to be false and two purported victims were indicted for perjury[2] (one was convicted and sentenced to 9–15 years in prison[3]) though numerous conspiracy theories persisted afterwards.[1]

adding ...

VICTIM/WITNESS PAUL BONACCI IMPRISONED - 5 years for touching a boys penis outside of the pants.

John De Camp, Attorney, and former long-term Nebraska State Senator, represented Bonacci. De Camp believes this abnormally long sentence was an attempt to silence Bonacci in the Franklin matters.

SEVENTY-SIX CHILDREN WHO REPORTED SEXUAL ABUSE RECANT OR REFUSE TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION

GARY CARADORI , KEY INVESTIGATOR OF FRANKLIN, DIES IN PLANE CRASH (Plane was torn-apart in mid flight like by a bomb, otherwise these little planes can glide to the ground easy as pie)

VICTIM/WITNESS TROY BONER RECANTS HIS TESTIMONY UNDER DURESS

VICTIM/WITNESS ALISHA OWEN IMPRISONED

Alisha Owen was convicted of first offense perjury in 1991and was sentenced on August 8, 1991, to nine to 27 years in prison. During her prison term, she was in solitary confinement for a period longer than any female citizen in the history of the State of Nebraska.

GUNDERSON JANUARY 3, 1992, LETTER TO DON STENBERG, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL--On January 3, 1992, based on the obstruction of justice in the investigation of the Franklin case, Ted Gunderson (this writer) wrote a letter to the Honorable Don Stenberg, Nebraska State Attorney General asking him to look into the matter. Gunderson cited the following irregularities:

  • "Pornographic material has been seized ... with no follow-up investigation."
  • "During the summer of 1990, the FBI reviewed the Senate Franklin Credit Committee Investigation files without the permission or knowledge of Senator Loran Schmit. It was later learned that a number of items are missing".
  • "Alisha Owen’s first attorney, Pam Vuchetich, provided privileged attorney-client information to the FBI. She also failed to file a timely appeal in Ms. Owens's conviction on bad check charges. Ms. Vuchetich has reportedly been romantically involved with a FBI agent."
  • "The Nebraska Leadership Conference has developed information that the FBI has not only leaked information to Omaha TV stations, but asked for and received money for this."
  • "Larry King and others were never subpoenaed to the Douglas County Grand Jury".
  • "Numerous individuals identified as perpetrators have never been interviewed by law enforcement officers."
  • "Instead of conducting follow-up interviews, law enforcement officers, particularly the FBI, have attempted to discredit and harass the victims."
  • "Paul Bonnacci has new information about the Johnny Gosch kidnapping case in Des Moines, Iowa, yet law enforcement officers refuse to interview him or to consider further investigation of the matter".
  • "In February 1990 Robert Fenner, General Counsel for the National Credit Union Association, was advised by the FBI not to cooperate with the Franklin Credit Committee’s investigator, Gary Caradori".
  • "On March 9, 1990 the FBI attempted to entrap Owen by taping an arranged phone call from Boner to her."
  • "A deposition by former Omaha Chief of Police Robert Wadman disappeared during the Owen trial."
  • "Wadman lied under oath claiming he was not carrying a gun during the period Owen says she was involved with him".

John De Camp explains that at the Dallas National Republican Convention in 1984, King threw a giant extravaganza at Southfork Ranch, years before exposure of the Franklin matters. De Camp, a Nebraska Senator at the time, was in attendance and saw youths at the party. Victim/witness Paul Bonacci testified to being in attendance and described the party in exact detail to John De Camp, details De Camp claims could only be known by someone who was there.

FRANKLIN CONNECTIONS TO "SUICIDED" CRAIG SPENCE

"According to a Washington, D.C. investigative journalist who researched the Spence ring, ‘The way we discovered Larry King and this Nebraska-based call boy ring, was by looking through the credit card chits of Spence’s ring, where we found King’s name.’ Another investigator, with personal knowledge of the call-boy rings operating in Washington, put it this way: ‘Larry King and Craig Spence were business partners. Look at two companies, ‘Dream Boys’ and ‘Man to man", both of which operated under another service, ‘Bodies by God’. "

LARRY KING AND FRANKLIN TIED TO IRAN-CONTRA DRUGS-FOR-ARMS AFFAIR

LARRY KING SUDDENLY TAKEN TO PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY 1990

DOCUMENTARY "CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE" NOT AIRED AND DESTROYED--3 May 1994 as per TV Guide

JOHNNY GOSCH, KIDNAPPED CHILD, CONNECTION TO FRANKLIN CASE

MILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PAUL BONACCI AGAINST LARRY KING--On February 27, 1999,

You know the Franklin-Larry King Cover-up looks like the blue print for many of our current scandals and cover-ups. And the cover-up in France over the pedophile sex-porn-torture network. And the Catholic Church cover-up of pedophilia. And the 911 Commison Cover-up.

But the JFK, Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Cover-ups definitely gave them practice.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5661) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

And yet, there are some on this forum that would call this nothing but conspiracy theory clap-trap. I'm not one of them, though.

I'd mention his name but I don't know how to pronounce lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yeah, one of the first lawyers was a Republican who was supposed to put the story to bed. He ended up digging up all kinds of stuff that made him sick.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Had a discussion on abortion the other day. Interesting. Each party COULD have backed the opposite side.

Liberals could have taken the pro life stance, saying that the unborn is the perfect example of the little guy with no voice.

Conservative could have taken the stance that the governement has no business telling people what they can and cannot do.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Sparticus might have had a Piper Cub. What's the point?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

Is there no end to the (R)epelican't war on women?

What is their end game? Cages and chastity belts?

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/the-gops-war-on-women-and-children/news/2011/02/17/17488

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, you are right. They really want to bring back The Dark Ages. There's just no other way to interpret these people.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

It turns out, (R)epelican'ts have turned against women some time ago.

This from 1996..

http://www.jofreeman.com/polhistory/repubfem.htm

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

It's long been part of their overall repressive, greedy, divissive and monstrous package, that's for sure.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

Now, Arizona want's to call for pre-emptive pregnancy.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/04/arizona-bill-would-declare-pregnancy-2-weeks-before-conception/

I think we just entered the (R)epelican't Twilight Zone.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well, they gotta stir up the hicks before the election. The hicks aren't that hot on Romney, they don't think he's weird enough (they're wrong). But you know what they say, there's a sucker born every minute and two to take um.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

Pre-emptive pregnancy is a bit much, even for (R)epelican'ts in Arizona.

Did they boil their brains in the sun?

How in the World is this supportive of anyone's rights?

Throw out all the Mexicans and declare all women pregnant?

These people are boop shoobi.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

BOOP SHOOBI!

Hey don't ask me, maybe it's ice adiction. I mean, how can you EXPLAIN this stuff???

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

Boop shoobi, is a line from a Joni Mitchell song, that was spoken by Cheech Marin.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

It's pretty funny!

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

Thank God for google, sometimes it even works.......LOL

It's the last song on Court and Spark..................Twisted.

It's a jazz tune cover of a tune by Annie Ross from '59'.

Joni http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKIQSo7JbKQ

Annie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APS_3Q3mGlQ

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You Fascists can keep going through this post and voting down every sane person with your "bots," or whatever you use as a substitute for a mind, and guess what, I don't give a crap. In fact, because you hate this post so much, if I do nothing else, I'm going to make SURE it stays on top for a long, long time.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

No worries brother, with the things (R)epelican'ts do to trample rights in general and women's rights in particular, there will be no end to the proof.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2011/mar/26/republicans-rush-trample-womens-rights/

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Right on! Great article and I'll tell you, from my point of view, any man that's okay with pushing an agenda like this is welcome to go and live in Saudi Arabia.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Fascists? You mean Republican and Democrat politicians and their campaigners?

Oh wait, this is the new version of this forum. So you are probably just talking about one side, and giving a pass to the other.

So much for change. And a "revolution" that embraces the current powerholders isnt a revolution, its a fad. Divisive media brats like yourself are destroying our country, our movement and any hope we have for a better future.

Get lost.

[-] -3 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

You are a whiny little girl. Go cry in a flat beer.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Why is that an issue here, on this forum? I have met hundreds of Occupy women. I haven't met a single met a single one who plans to vote Republican. It seems to me that we ought to have considerably more important things to discuss on a forum like the than something that the entire Occupy movement agrees on. There is simply no debate or discussion here, nothing to move Occupy forward as a movement.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Blah, blah, blah, blah. I don't even read this hypnotic, psudo-communist dribble anymore.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

now wait a minute!!!!

that should say ANY Person

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You're right there. But I assume a lot of men are going to vote Republican. They always do - don't ask me why.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

sent this to ben I think it's funny so I'll send it to you, maybe I'm lazy:

I don't always disagree with you, but when I do, I disagree about the nuances of the evil that is the Republican Party.

(and I drink Dos XX)

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20422) 2 years ago

It is a sad commentary on our society over-all, I think.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes it is.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

someone predicted this election would be about abortion and women's rights

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Wow, there are just too many issues at stake to begin to list them; but yeah, that's certainly a big one!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

they call it a wedge issues

unfortunately, it will be used to bypass economic and war issues

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

How so? I don't quite follow your reasoning.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

republicans declare war on women

defeating the republicans becomes more important than economic and war issues

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Oh, I understand. Personally, I don't think we can address economic and war issues if we don't defeat the Republicans, although that is certainly just a first step. In short, I think we need to push the whole political spectrum way to the left, and the only way to do that is to push against the will of the oligarchs in every way we know how.

Furthermore, I really do believe that the Republican Party is now secretly about as far to the right as the Taliban when it comes to women's issues, and I don't take that fact lightly.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I thought Saudi Arabia had that spot light

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Is that our competition on women's rights, now?

The Republican plan is to cut taxes, then borrow money and pay interest to rich people, that’s been their plan for some time now, I don’t think it’s a good one, I think they bring up wedge issues to keep people from seeing that.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

or lack of plan on the democrats part to raise taxes

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

why does one party have to be the grownups? oh yeah, it's that pledge thought up by a 12 year old, makes sense if you look at it that way I suppose

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

dem vrs pubs looks like a side show to me

the republicans are terrible

the democrats must stop them

and maybe change the way things are run ???

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

best way to stop them is get them out of office, we can help there, or not

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

keep the actions of congress under a microscope

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

yes reduce the number of republicans to as few as possible and keep the actions of congress under a microscope,

lucky it only takes a few hours to make a thounsand calls and knock a thounsand doors plenty of time left for the scope

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If every person would give us 4 days in the park, a hundred hours to defeat an “R” we could win this thing.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Okay, They're certainly no better. I'm with you there.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I think it is pretty unfair to group all Republicans together. It is like saying all gypsies are thieves. I tend to vote Democrat at the Federal level but Republican at the state and local level. There are plenty of Republicans here in New England that are fiscal conservatives but are also socially liberal.

Just last week a national poll showed Republicans with a 6 percentage point advantage in a generic congressional vote poll, so obviously a good percentage of the country disagrees with you. Occupy is becoming more and more a far-left group of radicals and moving farther and farther from the wonderfully all-encompassing "we are the 99%" that it started as.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

All republicans are gypsies then...:D New England doesn't count- it's a totally different, progressive sort of world unlike most of our country. Mooks, those liberal republicans are few and far between and they don't influence their party as a whole. I consider Ron Paul to be a liberal on many fronts but his own party ignores him. The neocons are nothing like the conservatives of Roosevelt's day- unfortunately.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well, if you truely believe in the integrety of an individual candidate, whatever party they are in, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. The problem really is complex, and that is why it's so hard to find practical solutions that actually can be implemented.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if only, there was some way to discredit the movement without given any detail as to what issue is lost

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4020) 2 years ago

Agree.

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

yeah we need more great democratic politicians...too fix everything! lets get pelosi,reid and boxer and charlie rangel...to help! ..All the self respecting women can count on them. Fo Sho

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Could be backfiring...this is just from a few weeks ago - well into the "war on women" propaganda machine started up.

"However, the most telling result of this new survey was that the key-voting block of women now favors Romney over Obama, 46% to 44%. Obama resoundingly won women in 2008, garnering 56% of the vote to then-Republican nominee John McCain’s 43%."

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/may/15/new-poll-shows-romney-leading-obama-among-women-vo/

[-] 0 points by tupacsugar (-136) 1 year ago

Why don't you look to your own people first and clean up your own house before you point a finger elsewhere.

BY: Andrew Stiles - May 24, 2012 5:00 am A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.

Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.

The Free Beacon used publicly available salary data from the transparency website Legistorm to calculate the figures, and considered only current full-time staff members who were employed for the entirety of fiscal year 2011.

The employee gender pay gap among Senate Democrats was not limited to Murray, Boxer, and Feinstein. Of the 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus examined in the analysis, 37 senators paid their female staffers less than male staffers.

Senators elected in 2010—Joe Manchin, Chris Coons, and Richard Blumenthal—were not considered due to incomplete salary data.

Women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 pulled in an average salary of $60,877. Men made about $6,500 more.

While the gap is significant, it is slightly smaller than that of the White House, which pays men about $10,000, or 13 percent, more on average, according to a previous Free Beacon analysis.

The pay differential is quite striking in some cases, especially among leading Democrats. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who runs the Senate Democratic messaging operation, paid men $19,454 more on average, a 36 percent difference.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) paid men $13,063 more, a difference of 23 percent.

Other notable Senators whose “gender pay gap” was larger than 23 percent:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6 percent Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.)—40 percent Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.)—34.2 percent Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.)—31.5 percent Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.)—30.4 percent Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.)–29.7 percent Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)–29.2 percent Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.)—26.5 percent Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore)—26.4 percent Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)—23.2 percent Sen. Sanders, who is an avowed socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, has the worst gender gap by far. He employed more men (14) than women (10), and his chief of staff is male. Like many of his fellow partisans, he has previously accused Republicans of “trying to roll back the clock on women’s rights.”

One possible explanation for the pay disparity is the noticeable preference among Senate Democrats’ for male chiefs of staff, who typically draw the highest congressional salaries. Of the 46 Democratic Senators listing a chief of staff on their payroll in 2011, 13 were women.

A similar disparity exists in the White House, which employs 74 men and only 48 women in senior positions.

Senate Democrats have been actively pushing the issue of equal pay over the past several days. “In 19 of the 20 most common occupations for men or women, women earn less for the same work. We need #EqualPay,” the official Twitter account of Senate Democrats wrote on Tuesday.

Sen. Murray has invoked the so-called GOP “war on women” in fundraising pitches for months. “Women are people. That should be obvious, but apparently it isn’t, at least not to extreme Republicans who see us as mere targets of their political strategy,” she wrote in May 10, 2012, campaign fundraising e-mail.

Senate Democrats plan to bring the Paycheck Fairness Act, which some have described as a “trial lawyers’ payday” that would facilitate large punitive damage claims in discrimination suits, up for a vote following the Memorial Day recess.

Congress already passed equal pay legislation in January 2009. President Obama has frequently touted that bill—the Lilly Ledbetter Act—as the first piece of legislation he signed upon taking office, and has sought to declare “problem solved” on the issue of equal pay for women.

“We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act—the first bill I signed—so that equal pay for equal work is a reality all across this country,” he said in June 2009.

When it comes to prosecuting instances of gender pay discrimination, however, the Obama administration has been far less active than that of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush. Under Obama, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed six gender-based wage discrimination lawsuits. That number is down from 18 lawsuits filed during Bush’s second term.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

[This is why I vote republican] + (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyjKyby-76w)

=

This is why I vote republican

[-] -1 points by tupacsugar (-136) 1 year ago

You really have just changed the subject so you don't want to address the issue do you? It's hard for you to argue when you are clearly holding a losing hand. Youtube may be fun but deflection is a sign you have nothing,you are a loser.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

got it

try using a minimalist approach when presenting numbers

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

that both candidates are from Harvard?

sounds like a 1% issue

I'm here to stop bombs from dropping

[-] -1 points by tupacsugar (-136) 1 year ago

Don't start with the deflection Matt,you're smarter then that.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

says the thing that failed to repeat the question

edit

computer just crashed

[-] -1 points by tupacsugar (-136) 1 year ago

This scene is a microcosm of how liberals seek to silence the opposition by censorship and leveling personal attacks while avoiding the issues at hand. It further elucidates their ignorance of the issues, their bad habits of changing the subject during the debate, and their wild self-constructed fantasies of the world at large. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

[-] 0 points by sonofdy (0) 1 year ago

Thank you for proving OWS is a DNC front

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Spoken like a true RNC rear.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Ok....that was funny.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Here is a link to Washington Post that proves that Romney's People push propaganda just like the worst of them in Washington DC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romney-campaigns-misleading-stats-women-in-the-obama-economy/2012/05/01/gIQA0JWluT_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

They were lying for their own convenience about women in poverty under President Obama.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

I don't agree with this at all. These statistics completely ignore that fact that Bush's depression began shortly before Obama took office. This depression is a direct result of the deregulation, particularly of the banking industry, that ran rampant throughout the Bush's tenure in office.

Thus this whole story falls down and reveals itself for the propoganda that it is.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yup. I agree.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Good link, thanks. Have you ever seen such Orwellian stuff? Man!

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Well and there is - the war on terror was a self fulfilling prophesy.

I doesn't matter if President Carter signed the Intelligence Finding that create a Mujaheddin in Afghanistan and Al Queda.

The occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or where ever in Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa - clearly has a life of it's own. And US think tanks plan to occupy till eternity.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Endless war, an endless military state.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Some women are actually against abortion, and that factors importantly in who they vote for. A woman who is against abortion may not think it infringes on her rights as a woman for abortion to be limited or be illegal.

To say any woman who would vote Republican lacks independence and self-respect is fairly myopic. There are just as many bad reasons to vote Democrat as to vote Republican party, and the Democrats bear down on women just as well as Republicans, if not worse.

To vote Democrat is also to be duped into voting for the 1%.

[-] 0 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"A woman who is against abortion may not think it infringes on her rights as a woman for abortion to be limited or be illegal."

Until she needs an abortion. It's easy to be against something for other people. When it hits home, most of them change their tunes real quick.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I know plenty of women who have never had an abortion. My mother is one of them. My grandmothers are two others.

I've gone to the Pro-Life march on Washington. I can honestly say that at least 70% of the people there marching were women. That's what convinced me to question my prior stance on abortion.

To be "pro-abortion" I think sends a complicated message. It suggests that we should view this important aspect of femininity as a flaw (and it suggests that a child is a burden). Rather--I don't know if this is the conservative viewpoint, but is rather my incredibly Leftist viewpoint--we should embrace pregnancy as a miracle of nature. We should celebrate the woman. We should celebrate the child. By condoning abortion, we dismiss both the Power of the woman, and the miracle of the child. I don't suggest it should be illegal, but I think the question of abortion is more complicated than liberals make it out to be.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Using a term like "pro-abortion" is raising a strawman argument. Nobody is "pro-abortion." When we say pro-choice, we mean "pro-choice." My mother, grandmothers, great-grandmothers and so on never had abortions either. That point is meaningless.

But here's the real problem. You have a wife or girlfriend, that decision is between you two. No other woman's life, health or child-bearing status is your or anyone's business but hers (and maybe a would-be father, but even that can be dubious). The principle at work here has zero to do with the morality of abortion itself. It is entirely about privacy and the insertion of an outside ethos on complete strangers.

It's none of our business what women do with their bodies and the only people who think it is are deeply ignorant of the trauma caused by abortion. If abortion was the equivalent of a penicillin shot, we could have a legitimate debate. But it's actually an extremely invasive and unsettling procedure that no woman wants to ever have to go through.

To treat women, already at emotional extremes due to their circumstance, as nothing more than walking incubators is callous, myopic and deeply offensive. As a man, I would never even think about telling a woman what she can and can't do with her pregnancy. I wouldn't even argue with my wife about it. The entire debate is beyond sexist. It belies a sense of ownership over women that is beneath contempt. I don't care how "complicated" the emotions are for some women who obviously are not concerned about needing an abortion. What my wife chooses to do with a potential pregnancy is none of their business. Period.

[-] 0 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I'm sorry I wrote "pro-abortion" in such a way. I didn't write it to make it an offensive term. I guess I find the term "pro-choice" to be as dubious and silly a term as "pro-life." I wish they'd really just accept "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" as their names, as that's what the positions really are and are the names which I use in personal conversations, and perhaps I'm pragmatic in this regard. I just never refer to either side by the glossy term "pro-life" or the gilded term "pro-choice." Back to the meat:

So are you saying that only women have any right to say abortion is bad? But then what gives you any right to say abortion is acceptable?

The problem is that pregnancy is a natural process that usually results in the birth of a living, feeling, breathing, crying being. I can definitely understand the argument that someone needs to speak up for the voiceless child. It's the argument I more likely buy into.

That's why I don't accept the argument that it's "between a woman and her doctor." What about the child? In physics, we accept that potential energy is energy nonetheless. Why not the potential child?

A woman in a relationship should be able to accept the consequences of sex before engaging in sex. Part of the deficiency of the liberal view of sex and abortion is the laissez faire mindset which they suggest works in life yet admit is detrimental to the business sector. I find both the liberal and conservative viewpoints in general beset with contradictions. That is way I firmly stamp my foot on the idea that regulations on our business, political, and personal centers work best.

If a woman is pregnant, she should discuss it with the man before she gets and abortion. I've known men who have experienced psychological trauma because of an abortion. It's something women should not dismiss.

But don't you see it's actually sexist to say that only women have any right in deciding about an abortion? Don't you see that this talk of "it's none of our business what women do with their bodies" is actually an endorsement of and result of this Capitalistic philosophy of private property that is shoved down our throats and we fight against?

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"So are you saying that only women have any right to say abortion is bad? But then what gives you any right to say abortion is acceptable?"

I don't. I say it's none of my freaking business.

"The problem is that pregnancy is a natural process that usually results in the birth of a living, feeling, breathing, crying being."

Sorry, but you're wrong there, too. It only "usually" leads to a healthy birth in nations with low birth mortality rates, which is not most of the countries in the world. It's also a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States. Childbirth is traumatic and physically dangerous for both mother and child. It's only in the age of modern medicine that we've come to expect a positive outcome.

"I can definitely understand the argument that someone needs to speak up for the voiceless child. It's the argument I more likely buy into."

If the life of the child was as valued in anti-abortion circles as the life of the unborn child, you might have a point. But it isn't. In fact, de-funding everything that helps people climb out of poverty, trying to dismantle public education and sending teenagers off to pointless wars (to name just a few anti-family policies) seems like quite the opposite to me.

"In physics, we accept that potential energy is energy nonetheless. Why not the potential child?"

In your analogy, there is no mechanism that automatically assumes a conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. Maybe you should try another one. ;-)

"A woman in a relationship should be able to accept the consequences of sex before engaging in sex."

And that's why this is a specious argument. Men cannot carry babies and therefore, cannot suffer the same consequences, and yet, they are the ones most likely to pressure a woman into the act to begin with. A woman is a slut if she says yes, a prude if she says no. Don't pretend that type of misogyny doesn't exist everywhere in our culture. I've seen it first hand too many times to count.

"Part of the deficiency of the liberal view of sex and abortion is the laissez faire mindset which they suggest works in life yet admit is detrimental to the business sector."

And now you have gone completely off the rails. Pregnancy? Laissez-faire? Just knock off the bullshit.

"If a woman is pregnant, she should discuss it with the man before she gets and abortion."

Unless the man is a violent prick, which, unfortunately, makes up nearly half the male population in America. Domestic violence is rampant in every State and you think women should get his permission? I think not. Some women won't even tell their boyfriends that they're on birth control because the men think they own the womb. Assholes!

"I've known men who have experienced psychological trauma because of an abortion."

Shouldn't HE have considered the consequences of his "laissez faire" attitude before impregnating a woman who might seek an abortion? You don't think HE has any responsibilities? Seriously, dude. You're losing it.

"But don't you see it's actually sexist to say that only women have any right in deciding about an abortion?"

No.

"Don't you see that this talk of "it's none of our business what women do with their bodies" is actually an endorsement of and result of this Capitalistic philosophy of private property that is shoved down our throats and we fight against?"

Women's bodies are not private property. They are human beings and you will treat them as such if I'm ever in the room. Count on it!

[-] 0 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I don't know why you take what I say and assume I'm Rick Santorum or something or even arguing in any way all the things you seem to assume I am, such as:

"In fact, de-funding everything that helps people climb out of poverty, trying to dismantle public education and sending teenagers off to pointless wars (to name just a few anti-family policies) seems like quite the opposite to me."

How does that relate to anything I wrote? I don't know where you're coming from. I'm assuming you think I'm conservative. I'm probably more liberal than you are, you just haven't talked to me about anything else.

"And that's why this is a specious argument. Men cannot carry babies and therefore, cannot suffer the same consequences, and yet, they are the ones most likely to pressure a woman into the act to begin with. A woman is a slut if she says yes, a prude if she says no."

I agree men pressure this, but wouldn't it make more sense to just work toward a society where stuff like this doesn't happen? Shouldn't we teach our children the benefits of delayed gratification? The truth of the matter is abstinence IS the only 100% effective birth control method whether you want to admit it or not. I also haven't argued that men and women should wait until marriage, so don't assume I am like you've assumed much else.

"I don't. I say it's none of my freaking business."

But you are making it your business. You have been taking up the argument with me since the beginning. Either it is your freaking business--since you've been talking about it--or you think women can't respond for themselves and you are their arbiter. Which is it?

I shouldn't even bother responding to your points because you stretch everything I say out of control. Sorry, but you lost me. People like you are the reason OWS is apt to lose support. You stick to a movement rather than an independent thought.

Reading over your arguments it's clear you'll use any form of logic, fallacy or otherwise, to fit your narrow mindset. It's pointless arguing with you because your mind is made up. It's cool to be pro-choice in Liberal circles so that's what you are and no force on earth would ever change you. And I'm not saying any force SHOULD change your mind, but the fact that you just brush anyone else's logic away and fit whatever fallacy you want in place is sad. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. Read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty."

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if I became pregnant, I would want whether or not to have an abortion to be my decision

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I think many people here I missing the point of what I'm arguing.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

Yeah, it don't much matter what the other folks want to call it.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

thats wonderful.. but it only last until the baby is around 1. then its rip the support system from under neath and let the kid starve on the street. it makes no sense.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I'll try to respond on what I think you're saying:

If abortion were made illegal, it would disproportionately effect mothers and children in poverty. I agree. If poverty weren't so rampant, then abortion wouldn't be such a pressing question. At that point, the only excuse for abortion would be "I don't want it" if wealth were evenly spread.

All things ultimately come back to the distribution of wealth. I don't think any pregnant woman ever wakes up in the morning with sunshine in her smile and says, "I would love to have an abortion today!"

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Bingo!

[-] 1 points by Peacewillprevail (6) 2 years ago

Really? How do you know this?

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Seen it.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well, I agree with you really, but what I am after is a program. The question is, how do we get from where we are to where we need to get. I don't think that includes voting Republican, and if you feel that the Democratic party is equally at war against women's rights that is just not true.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

As far as I can see, when they force us to buy shit from the insurance cartel,and let the cartel decide whats best for us, they are at war with ALL OF US.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yeah, that's why the Republicans have stood so staunchly against insurance companies and have called for national healthcare.

Who was it that blocked the government option, which would have eventually forced private insurers out of the market anyway? You guys just make it up as you go along!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I never said that! Where do you get this shit?!

THEY ARE BOTH FOR MORE CORPORTISM!!

My god this fuckin country is dumb!!!!!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

vulgarity is a sign of dementia -
please go see your doctor

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

thinking vulgarity is a sign of dementia is.....um.....

shhhhh.....

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

There is no difference = Don't vote = Republican victory = victory of the 1% = defeat for OWS. Got it now?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

There is no difference= vote for someone who actually represents hope (indies/3rd)= one of two corrupted parties still wins because the masses are fuckin idiots= I didnt contribute to innocent people getting killed over seas.

But clearly you dont give a shit about that, do you?

Got it. Thanks. Go join the war if you back it so much.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You are interesting. If only you could learn to reason. You know there used to be a newscaster named Harry Reasoner. I used to think that was funny because every time I saw him I imagined a chimpanzee reading the news. The difference is, you're not funny.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Way to resort to lame attacks as usual.

You should run for office.

Or join the rest of the hacks on CNN or FOX. At least go on a mission to one of these countries that we are killing people in, seems how you are endorsing them. It might help to balance your karma back out.

[-] 0 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I think Liberals seek to make women more like men. The Democratic party more than the Republicans has embraced feminism, which I think is actually dismissive of femininity.

I expect I'll get some negative points for such a statement.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I don't think Conservatives are interested in women at all, or even realize they exist. Everytime the question of women's issues come up they just try to slam women out of existance. What they really want must be a world with no women at all.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Nope what they really want is a barefoot and prego woman at home who will take the beatings and keep her mouth shut and wait on them hand and foot afraid that to leave would leave her and any kids starving. Wages for women that are never high enough. They need women to need them because they are afraid if they didn't think they needed them, they'd bail.

If any poor woman reading this wants to abort right after their first late period, it can be accomplished by melting plain old table salt in plain old water (I used tap water, guess if you want you could try distilled but you have to heat it up some to melt the salt in good). You add salt until it stops dissolving and begins to leave a few crystals on the bottom, You then fill a bulb syringe with the salt solution and shoot it up your cervix. One lumpy period coming up and I do mean quick. I don't feel a man should be able to get a woman drunk, take advantage of her, and spread his seed in one fell swoop. These are little things women should know how to do. Its called "Salting out" I got the idea from anti-abortion literature. It just makes me sick how women have to wait till they are three and four months along and under go a dangerous procedure that could could scar them because it takes them that long to save up the money for an abortion. It wouldn't save those allowed to die because they were too far along and their life wasn't considered more important. If its the mother or the child, a woman can try again in a few months. It could take twenty years for that baby grow up and find out it was sterile and that was the end of her bloodline forever and every more.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thank you for coming right out and saying that. That's exactly what they want. They are no different from the extreme Muslum fundamentalists they have been whipping up so much hatred for, the ultimate hypocrits, and their professed "faith" is an international joke. They believe in the "god" of money and the "law" of the jungle.

If Jesus came back and saw them he'd thrash them six ways from Sunday.

The fact you feel it necessary to explain that procedure is equally a slap in face by cold reality.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

Some men make wonderful husbands and fathers and other don't, the same goes for women and motherhood. As long as woman doesn't know what she can do, I will feel the need to explain that procedure. As long as pro-lifers try riddle women who need an abortion with guilt and shame when they attempt to reach out for help to a doctor, I will tell women that procedure. As long roofies go by cute names, I will tell that procedure. Women should know, and they do not know! To me that is the crime. Its so simple, its cheap anyone who can use a tampon should be able to pull it off! I believe God knows which fetuses will survive long enough to need a soul and which ones will not. I believe women have a responsible to society to be-careful of who's children they bring into the world. No farmer tries to breed the meanest animals he can find unless he is some kind of sicko. Different people can manage higher levels of aggression differently however a body is not a clean slate that has no influence on the soul occupying it. The whole world is counting on women to be empowered to make the best decisions for good of all, it always has. Women are important, we have to make important choices that affect a lot of people. We have a place in the world. Empowering women is especially important with reproductive rights. There are good men who would not abuse their power to control a pregnancy but some would and it is those people we need to be protected from.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thanks for speaking out.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I don't believe in anything Rick Santorum says. I think the guy's a fascist when it comes to women's rights. But I don't have faith in the Liberal side of it either. One camp is completely dismissive of women, and the other seeks to make them more masculine. In a sense, both sides really want a world with no women at all.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Always back around to the same theme - there is no difference, there is no difference, there is no difference . . . Wow, I wonder what's the "on topic" troll message for today?

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

If you've seen me posting around the forum, you'd know I'm not a troll.

But the proof is in the pudding. The Obama Administration is continuing the legacy of folks like Jimmy Carter of supporting corporate interests. There's a difference between the two parties. One is completely hand in hand with the corporations, and the other only keeps one and a half hands in.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Please give me a plan by which OWS succeeds if the Republicans are returned to office.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

OWS has already succeeded. The politicians just have a good poker face.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I sort of agree (for example, I just seen a union leader on the Ed Show discuss the 99% Spring, which was inspired by OWS). So OWS ideas are disseminating into the public (albeit somewhat indirectly). Nonetheless, if we want to say OWS is at least loosely based on some anarchist ideas, anarchism is not something that really has an end. As long as power structures exist, anarchism will challenge them (at least ... hopefully).

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I hope to heck you're right! We certainly have succeeded in putting them on the defensive for the first time since 1970! But this time, let's make sure we win!

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

For example, in New York state they're finally talking about raising minimum wage. Even a conservative fatcat like Bloomberg endorses the idea. It's not like $7.25 an hour was ever good. Massachusetts has had $8.00 an hour for years. Why talk about it now? It's more than a coincidence that OWS happened and THEN this becomes a hot topic of public conversation.

I'm confident that OWS has truly already made an impact. We just have to make sure not to ever become complacent.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well, I think we are still a long ways from delcaring victory.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

This guy is just a front for Obama and that is why he brough this issue up. Is it a concidence that this is Obama's campaign theme for this week. This is utter nonsene. Abortion is a complicated issue and one that has already been ruled on. Nobody is taking a woman's choice away.

Now forcing somebody with religious views to kowtow to the govenrment's secular views is completely a differen matter.

Gypsy King, I can tell you are not a father or you wouldn't be so rude and callous about this discussion.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

It's just the (R)epelican't reversal of the week.

Fully endorsed by the people that bring you FLAKESnews!!!

Where dumbing you down is a mission statement.

It works too!!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thanks, this guy has proven himself such a tool that I don't even respond anymore.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I have no idea what you are saying.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

I'm sure you don't.

It's not the first time you've had issues with clearly written statements.

How 'bout this?

Would Karl Rove ring a bell? Since you've never heard of FLAKESnews.

Virgin ears?

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I have no idea what FLAKESnews is?

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

Of course you don't. They won't let watch TV, or get on the internet.

You might hurt yourself. You're so delicate.

You know exactly what FLAKESnews is. Don't be facetious. LOL

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Sorry, you have lost me. I don't watch a lot of TV save for Justified, Mad Men and Top Chef.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

I like Dexter and baseball.

Now, don't play coy. FLAKESnews makes people dumb so you really should know about it, if you're up on much at all.

Or, maybe you did watch it and now you can't remember?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by MrWashburn (5) 2 years ago

Just say what flakesnews is and stop being a bitch

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the major news stations are owned by corporations and act in their interest

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Plenty of anti-abortion women out there.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Plenty of anti-women women, I guess.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Which ever way they feel about it, I respect it.

Nothing wrong with telling someone that its your body and you will do whatever you want with it.

Nothing wrong with saying that its a life, and therefore has certain rights.

Very complicated stuff.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Yes very complicated -
just the same people who killed the Muslims 900 years ago because they said Jeruselem must be Christian
just the same people who killed the Jews 500 years ago because they said Jews must be Catholics
just the same people who killed the Witches 400 years ago because they said Witches must be Christians
just the same people who killed the WTC 11 years ago because they said Americans must be Moslems


Its always the same .................ALWAYS


people who are like me, and believe like me are good
everyone else is bad, everyone else is wrong

[-] 1 points by Peacewillprevail (6) 2 years ago

Those people were all republicans?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

or their ancestors

[-] 1 points by Peacewillprevail (6) 2 years ago

How do you know that? I mean no disrespect but I don't understand.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

All of those groups of lemmings did the same thing that the anti-choice lemmings do -
they want everyone to be exactly like them
there is recent research that shows the brains of "believers" are different from the brains of "reasoners" { struth }

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well perhaps, when it comes to abortion, maybe, but this Congresss' hatred of women has gone way beyond simply the issue of abortion.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

A few examples?...

And please dont give me the birth control crap. If someone cant afford the $20 a month for BC, then they should be screwing in the first place.

[-] 5 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

From the link provided by JIFFYSQUID92 in this thread:

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

Oh, and they're waging a war on birth control because it gins up their base but they're already paying for it. But to couch it as an issue of religious freedom, flanked by a church that is hip-deep in its own deeply perverted sex scandal, is beyond hubris. It's truly deranged. And that's just in D.C. It gets even worse at the State level.

And honestly, any man that doesn't want women to have ready and convenient access to birth control is either prepubescent, a eunuch or a closeted gay misogynist who hates society for making him pretend to be straight. I know which one they are in the church. Which one are you?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Here's my theory -
flag burning
gay rights
abortion rights
Acorn
NPR
The R's could not care less about ANY of this BS
All they care about is making their employers richer How do they do this?


They tie up government dealing with this BS so America's REAL PROBLEMS don't get solved
jobs
crime
poverty
education
medicare
etc


ALL COST MONEY TO FIX &
REQUIRE HIGHER TAXES ON THE EMPLOYERS


th..th..th..th..thats all folks!

[-] 4 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Sounds about right. Fighting about meaningless "isms" keeps too many people from noticing the men behind the curtain. But the overreach may be the beginning of their undoing.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Mostly, but ACORN was about votes they care about keeping people from voting, and NPR often tells the truth, and any truth is poison to them.

I don't always disagree with you, but when I do, I disagree about the nuances of the evil that is the Republican Party.

(and I drink Dos XX)

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"the evil that is the Republican Party." DON'T YOU DARE INSULT EVIL !

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Doh!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Like I said, if your life is such a mess that you cant afford birth control, then you probably shouldnt be screwing.

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

So you're the closeted gay misogynist. Got it!

Thanks! ;-)

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Another great conversation. Way to bring more to the forum.

.....

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yeah, thanks a lot for trying to take it down your usual sleazy road.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

That's not what you said, you slipped and said what you really thought.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Now your'e a mind reader.

I really hope you don't vote this year. We need less people endorsing these two war mongers.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

could be that screwing is all that keeps you from killing people you do understand that sex is required for optimal mental and physical health.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I second that notion!! But I vehemently disagree with the punct and gram...

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

And you understand that a pack of condoms only costs $5?

So there arent any happy virgins out there?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Interesting reply, on many levels. I will get back to you shortly. Unfortunately, I have to log off for awhile.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Since jiffy dug up the facts while I was away, I won't bother to address the 'substance' of your comment, but I will say that I was taken aback by the Freudian slip.

I assume you mean't to say they shouldn't be "screwing" in the first place, but instead you said they "should be". I think this slip unwittingly reveals your true feelings on a number of levels; at least one of which you probably aren't even aware of yourself.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

Any woman who votes for a democrat is a lemming w/ a low IQ... and poor self esteem...:) wise up. Go Conservatives! Unite against the forces of those who promote the welfare state., which sucks all the ambition and self worth out of you.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

'Scuse me. I don't know my IQ, but I'm quite sure it's not low and I absolutely don't have poor self esteem. I don't believe in right wing economic policies that have gotten us into this mess. More neo-liberal economics will only make things worse.

The wealthy are not job creators. Privatizing institutions that benefit the public good, and excessive deregulation is just wrong and dangerous.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

are you on welfare and.getting section 8 housing.? lay off the crack sweetie. you make zero sense.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

See? Here It Is.

Posted 2 hours ago on May 23, 2012, 4:54 p.m. EST by GirlFriday (4660) This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://www.upworthy.com/breaking-you-know-that-nick-hanauer-ted-talk-you-werent-supposed-to-see-here-it-?g=3&c=dfa1

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Really. What doesn't make sense? Maybe you think that wealthy people are job creators. You're wrong.

Corporations and the wealthy are suppliers. Not job creators. Corporations are only 'potential' job creators. If there is demand. They don't create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. They are only suppliers. Their role is to meet demand. Not create jobs. No demand. No job creation. Not the other way around. Demand has to come first, before a job will be created.

What did I say that didn't make sense? What do you like about neo-liberal economic policies.

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

how about a nice warm cup of stfu?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26603) 1 year ago

Now that was uncalled for.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

sorry...i could not help it..I have keyboard tourettes.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Whatever. Sorry you don't have an understanding of neo-liberal economics. But you might want to check it out. It is an election year. Enjoy your lack of knowledge and closed mind.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

well you might try electric shock therapy...or a stint at Four winds hospital.. that might help to readjust your warp.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

That's very funny Sunshine. You're just making the world brighter by being in it aren't you. Even if you're not intelligent. It's ok. Baby steps.

Try this. Gain a little knowledge. Baby steps for you Sunshine. It's a big picture. Not too many words. We'll work our way up to that.

http://www.thenation.com/image/extreme-inequality-chart

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

oh boy...thank you. contact me post your treatment of choice. you can be very happy if you do what they say.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

ok. Let's continue. Think about the big wealth inequality picture I gave to you Sunshine. Now think about taxes.

You see, super duper low historical tax rates has contributed to wealth inequality. Super low tax rates are a neo-liberal policy. As if lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy will lead to job creation. It won't. Demand leads to job creation. I already covered that above. Go back and re-read as necessary.

Taxes are not a big bad scary thing. It's not a socialist/communist thing or anything like that. It's perfectly consistent with classical economic theory of capitalism. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society. It's only neo-liberal policy that believes all taxes are bad.

Adam Smith believed in progressive taxes. And he's not a socialist/communist is he? You do know Adam Smith don't you?

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

See! It's not socialist or communist to pay taxes.

Adam Smith also believed that government has a role in providing certain public goods for the benefit of society. Like schools, infrastructure, and social welfare. He supported government provided education and government regulation.

He believed in government intervention - ''especially when the object is to reduce poverty.''

He believed in regulation - ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''

See! Paying taxes, government regulation, social welfare and certain government provided goods and services are not socialist or communist.

It's only neo-liberal economic policy that believes all taxes are bad, all regulation is bad, social welfare is bad and all government provided goods and services are bad.

Now that you have a little more knowledge (hopefully!), how come you like neo-liberal economic policies so much? How come you don't like Adam Smith?

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 1 year ago

And as for taxation he also said

"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."

And his best quote is arguably "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 1 year ago

And he also was a proponent of specialization of labor. In "The Wealth of Nations" he has suggested that countries should undertake those economic activities that they are competitive in and import the rest; such an arrangement is beneficial for the whole. And if we were to go by that definition, you should not at all be against outsourcing of manufacturing to China or IT services to India.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sure lets get us in a position where we are dependent on outside suppliers. Then one fine day they decide they want to hold us over a barrel? What are we gonna do start up these businesses from scratch? Or will we send our military the new GDP of America over to swat them?

Similar to what we do and threaten to do over fossil fuel or rare minerals.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 1 year ago

So according to you countries should produce everything within their shores and never import? Are you crazy?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Countries that have the materials on hand for self sufficiency could very well do that. The USA has everything it needs to be self sufficient.

A country like Greece? No.

A continent like Africa? Yes.

Apparently you do not have an idea of how self sufficient this country could be if it sealed it's borders. Now that would not be very neighborly - but it could be done.

Your comment above suggests that we give up a lot of the things we do here and can do here in the USA to have other countries supply us instead. That is called being dependent on others good will.

Is this world such a peaceful and well mannered and caring place that being dependent for goods or services would be advisable?

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 1 year ago

No it doesn't. We need to import oil, commodities, metals and so much more from other countries.

You are not being dependent on others good will, you depend on their self interest.

And yes this world is peaceful enough and thats exactly what we have been doing for centuries. No country has even in history been self sufficient. USSR came closest to self sufficiency because of its huge population and land mass, but it does not exist anyone.

Dude, you need to read history and may be a little bit of contemporary world affairs as well.

[-] -3 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

I get satisfaction of three kinds. One is creating something, one is being paid for it and one is the feeling that I haven't just been sitting on my ass all afternoon. wise up already and cut the BS, wordy, ideologue, socialist drivel.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Sorry. Not familiar with that particular economic theory.

I don't think you understand what socialism means. Socialism means that workers own the means of production. How come you keep insisting that Adam Smith is a socialist? Adam Smith was a capitalist. Classical capitalist theory. Not socialist. I think you're very confused Sunshine.

Adam Smith believed in a certain amount of government regulation, government intervention, progressive taxes, social services and certain government provided goods and services for the benefit of society.

You're don't seem to understand the difference between classical capitalist theory (Adam Smith) and neo-liberal economic theories (Austrian School, Friedrich Hayak, Milton Friedman). It is the Right wing neo-liberal economic theories which believes that all taxes are bad, all regulations are bad, and all government interference is bad.

And since you cannot properly distinguish between classical capitalist economic theory and neo-liberal economic theory, you are therefore equating classical capitalist theory (Adam Smith) with socialism. You're very confused Sunshine.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

HELLO ! Our political economy and our high-energy industry runs on ideas — not by day-to-day guess work, expedients and improvisations. Ideas have to go into exchange to become or remain operative. Though liberals do a lot of talking about their views...it seems to shock them that others have opinions. Your post is mucho boring :)

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Honey Sweetie Bear, look at it this way. Economic theory is the basis for economic policies. Economic policies are like rules. Rules of the game. The rules shape and influence the game. Not the other way around. The game doesn't shape the rules. The rules shape and influence the game. Form shapes content. Form/rules/policies determines outcome and results. Change the 'form', change the 'rules', and the outcome and results will be different.

The economic theory that has dominated our country for the past 30 years is neo-liberalism. This economic theory has dominated policy making starting with Pres. Reagan. Pres. Reagan called it trickle-down economics. Neo-liberal economic theory is favored by the right wing. Though Dems/Pres. Clinton bought into some of it as well.

Trickle-down policies are based on neo-liberal economics. More simply, the right wing idea that 'the wealthy are the job creators'. This is simply not true. I already explained this above. Corporations and the wealthy are 'suppliers'. Not job creators. They only create jobs if and when there is demand. No demand. No jobs.

The results of 30 years of neo-liberal economic policy is pretty clear. Extremely dangerous levels of weatlh inequality, middle class wage stagnation, and the worst recession since the Great Depression. The rules shape the game. And this is the result.

You do realize, that for much of our modern history, since the Great Depression, our economic policies were based on classical liberalism (very Adam Smith). Please review my above post. Progressive tax rates, regulations and government provided goods and services for the benefit of society is not socialism/communism. It is capitalism. It is Adam Smith. It is classical liberalism. Rather than neo-liberalism, started by Pres. Reagan.

Dangerously high levels of wealth inequality is the result of 30 years of neo-liberal policies. Our level of wealth inequality today is almost as high as it was leading up to the Great Depression. The greatest cycle of prosperity and sustained job growth occurred after the Great Depression. When top effective tax rates were raised and averaged 60-70%. At the 60-70% tax levels, we paid down WWII debt (which was approx 120% of GDP, similar to the level we have today), built out our national infrastructure, put men on the moon and we saw our greatest levels of economic expansion in history. With lower levels of wealth inequality, good regulation that provided necessary protections, strong public schools that were the envy of the world, and a thriving middle class being the backbone of the country. This was all based on classical liberal economic policy (with some Keynsian sprinkled in).

I'm trying to understand your opinions. But all I'm really getting is simplistic, not very well thought out responses. That seem very knee-jerk, emotional and reactionary. Rather than being based on facts and evidence.

I think what you might be trying to say is that innovation leads to job creation. If so, I would agree. But for innovation to thrive, we need the best public education system in the world. Not merely average. And neo-liberal economic policy is not going to get us there. It will only make things worse.

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

we might agree on that .one. amazing

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

thanx..I cant stand these long, self righteous posts. That are just plain crap. lots of these peep's are both stupid & disturbed

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

It looks to me your moniker is as much a load of shit as your statements. What? Was that too much text for your little, feeble mind to process?

I guess I'll keep that in mind if i ever want to converse, oops, I mean talk, with you. Use small sentences and say only things that are espoused on television. Usually well thought out, articulate arguments take up space. It's just the nature of things. You should try it so as to open your mind, chump.

Also, those who go around calling people stupid and disturbed are usually projecting or just deflecting from the fact that they don't have a solid argument themselves. Bring it punk. I can be just as ghetto as the next person, maybe more so, because I eat bullies for breakfast.

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

oh .I'm scared now. please don't threaten me.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

Keep trying.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 1 year ago

TryingForAnOpenMindAndFailing.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

good one. you have way too much time on your hands...evidenced by your rambling, writings..which quite frankly exhibit a troubling lack of sophistication and wit.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The women who believe the democrat line that there is a war on women degrade and shame themselves.

Democrats are waging a war on the individual.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Any woman who would now vote for Obama, lacks independence,is full of hatred , and self respect. Just let the bureaucrats decide what is best for you!

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Now this site is nothing but a front for Obama. So you got the campaign memo last week?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

It's eazy to see which side the trolls are on anyway.

Actually, a lot of us are really disgusted by the "New Democrats," but that ain't enough to fool us into thinking that allowing the Republicans to win is the answer. Sorry, troll.

[-] -1 points by Dc123 (4) 2 years ago

I want to see where you get all of this info, you have to be retarted to to think any of this is real, except for the abortion stuff, that is good, ban it.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26603) 2 years ago

One gets this kind of accurate info from anyplace but wrong wing media.

These would include but not be limited to, FLAKESnews, Rush Limbaugh, Heritage Foundation, ALEC, CATO and many, many others.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk (-21) 2 years ago

I can't imagine you know any "self-respecting woman" to use as an example to draw from.

[-] -2 points by Dc123 (4) 2 years ago

Exactly how does Congress hate Woman?

[-] 4 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

[Removed]